linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] tools/lib/api/fs: Add procfs int read/write helpers

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 Feb 2017 11:30:01 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>
Cc:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
        Vince Weaver <vince@...ter.net>,
        lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tools/lib/api/fs: Add procfs int read/write helpers

On Mon, Feb 06, 2017 at 10:43:56PM -0300, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
> >  int sysctl__read_int(const char *sysctl, int *value);
> 
> Isn't sysctl__read_int() what you want?

Right, so looking at this: don't you think that having both sysctl__*
and procfs__* is a little redundant?

The sysctl* things are doing the accesses over proc so shouldn't it all
be procfs__* interfaces and no sysctl__* ones at all

or

at least the sysctl__* ones should call the procfs__* ones?

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

Good mailing practices for 400: avoid top-posting and trim the reply.